Reply #79: Depends on why you're asking

[Cats Against Frist]

If it's a friendly Constitutional reminder, and a call for equal rights -- then the real question is why do people who don't like gay marriage feel that they have the authority to dictate what freedoms people get.

As for the larger question -- fear, obviously. And, because they're idiots.

That said, as a critical thinker, I'm turned off, slightly by some of the specifics of a lot of gay culture -- particularly gay male culture -- and unwavering propaganda -- and yes, I said PROPAGANDA -- that homosexuality is genetic, when it is, in fact, though NOT A CHOICE, a psychological condition that doesn't have an "on/off" switch, but affects people to varying degrees. (No matter what my opinion, however, I have no problem with the law protecting homosexualities to the furthest degree).

There is truth to the fact that overtly homophobic males could be latently gay -- or at least turned on by some of the peripherals of the imaginings of gay coital excercise. "Splitting and projecting" is the common psychological term for it -- so is the totalitarian mindset. Religious indoctrination and shame, to be sure, are also factors.

Again, that said -- both sides have their "faith," rather than their "facts" as the bow of their movements. Homosexual marriage is NOT easily acclimated into the culture -- and the cry for gay marriage legality is an excercise not designed to necessarily get the law to protect gay marriage, but to legitimize the practice. The Constitutional argument, and the argument that broadens civil liberties the most is the arguement for civil unions, i.e. the government does NOT define ANY marriage -- and the right of joining in union is indisputably left up to the joinees.

"Legitimization," however is an attempt to get people to accept the practice -- not "tolerate," but ACCEPT -- I have my theories about the necessity of this, for the pacification of deep psychological misgivings and shame about one's lot, which I'm sure will be displayed openly, when people defensively respond to my post. That said, it is just a theory, and I'm open to other possibilities.

Getting people to "accept you," is not mandated by the Constitution. They should have to "accept" homosexuality no more than I should have to "accept" attention to NASCAR as a legitimately engaging pursuit. They should have to accept it no more than I should have to stop drinking lattes and reading Foucault, because the 'muricans like watered-down horse piss and love sound bites.

So, yes -- though I think that the people who crow about the "homosexual agenda" are hysterical and looking for scapegoats for their own pathetic lives, it seems to me that perhaps what's pushing them is not that they really believe that there are gays waiting to rape their kids, but that the imbalance, and deception on the part of the homosexual lobby jams their tiny, tiny brains. They can't sense what it is -- dishonesty about the origin of homosexuality, the civil union v. marriage argument -- whatever -- but they're only like six percent smart enough (and total alarmist freakazoids) to figure out anything beyond suspicion and intution.

I say have an honest discussion about homosexuality, and promote civil unions, and that might help.